Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA MARUTI PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petitioner attained superannuation on 31-08-2022 and is entitled to retirement benefits; the Tribunal's reinstatement order is quashed as unexecutable.
Summary
The petitioner, a permanent Assistant Teacher, was terminated by the school management on 13-04-2022 despite having applied for voluntary retirement in 2019. He attained the statutory age of superannuation on 31-08-2022 and sought retirement benefits rather than reinstatement. The School Tribunal had reinstated him, an order the petitioner contested as unexecutable given his superannuation. The High Court examined whether the termination could be set aside and whether the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits upon superannuation. It held that the petitioner had indeed superannuated and was eligible for retirement benefits, and quashed the Tribunal's reinstatement order. The Court directed the management to forward the necessary papers to the Education Officer for processing the pension.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination order can be set aside in view of the petitioner's attainment of superannuation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to retirement/pension benefits despite the termination.
- Whether the Tribunal's order for reinstatement is executable after the petitioner has superannuated.
Subjects
- superannuation
- retirement benefits
- termination
- school tribunal
- reinstatement
- pension
- employment law
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8677
1 904 wp 510.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 510 OF 2026
Rajendra Maruti Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Rahul B. Khot, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Sanjay D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Ms. Archana Gaikwad, Advocate a/w Shri Anilkumar Matle,
Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides finally with their consent.
2. The petition is directed against judgment and order dated
08.07.2025 passed in Appeal No. 15 of 2024 quashing order of
termination dated 13.04.2022 and reinstating the petitioner
within 30 days.
3. Learned counsels appearing for the litigating sides advance
rival submissions.
4. Undisputedly the petitioner stood superannuated on
31.08.2022. He was insisting for granting him voluntary
2 904 wp 510.26
retirement, which he had applied on 01.08.2019. It was not
accepted by the management. Besides that the respondent –
management conducted inquiry and terminated him vide order
dated 13.04.2022. The petitioner had preferred Appeal No. 15 of
2024 against order of termination.
4. It transpires that before the Tribunal also the petitioner
insisted for accepting his voluntary retirement, which is not
acceded to. It is case of the management that his claim for
voluntary retirement has been consistently refused by various
forums.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rahul Khot on
instructions of his client, who is present today in the Court has
made a statement that petitioner is not insisting for voluntary
retirement from the school and he would be satisfied if retiral
benefits considering date of superannuation are conferred upon
him.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent – management or the
learned A. G. P. did not have serious objection for considering the
petitioner as superannuated on 31.08.2022 and granting him
retiral benefits as is permissible in law.
7. It transpires from record that the petitioner is permanent
employee. When he suffered order of termination, he was acting
as an Assistant Teacher. He stood superannuated on 31.08.2022.
3 904 wp 510.26
He is entitled to retiral benefits, is apparent on record.
8. My attention is adverted by Mr. Rayrikar, learned A. G. P.
to the correspondence made by the Education Officer on
02.03.2021 to the management for forwarding the papers of the
petitioner for awarding retiral benefits. Further correspondence
on the same line has also been made, but there is no reply.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents -
management Ms. Archana Gaikwad has fairly stated that the
management is ready to forward the papers of the petitioner
provided that the petitioner accepts superannuation.
10. Interestingly the petitioner’s attaining age of
superannuation has not been brought to the notice of the
Tribunal. Instead of granting reinstatement, the Tribunal
should have treated the petitioner to have attained age of
superannuation on 31.08.2022. The impugned order is
unsustainable as it is unexecutable. I, therefore, pass following
order.
ORDER
A. The writ petition is allowed partly, quashing impugned
judgment and order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the School
Tribunal in Appeal No. 15 of 2024.
B. It is hereby declared that the petitioner has attained
4 904 wp 510.26
superannuation on 31.08.2022 and he is entitled to get
retiral/pensionary benefits as is permissible in law.
C. The respondents – management shall forward the papers to
the respondent No. 3 – Education Officer for awarding the retiral
benefits. The respondent No. 3 shall deal with the pension
papers as is permissible in law.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Sept. 26
Checking your session…